为什么没有任何宽体基准？

Jetliners come in both narrowbody (one aisle) and widebody (two or more aisles) versions, but all propliners, to the best of my knowledge, are narrowbody aircraft.

喷气式飞机有窄体(一个过道)和宽体(两个或多个过道)版本,但据我所知,所有的基准都是窄体飞机。

Now, granted, one of the big reasons for having widebody airliners is to have an aircraft big enough to cross oceans with a profitable passenger load, and transoceanic routes are (at least in civil aviation) exclusively the province of jets, because speed.

现在,获得批准,拥有宽体客机的一个重要原因是拥有足够大的飞机以通过有利可图的载客穿越海洋,并且跨洋航线(至少在民用航空中)完全是喷气机的省,因为速度。

However, in places with lots and lots of huge, densely-populated cities packed fairly closely together, such as much of East Asia, passenger numbers are so high as to require the use of large widebodies even on very short-haul routes - and, on short-haul flights, propliners hold a considerable advantage over jets (jets are horribly inefficient in the dense air at low altitudes, and short-haul flights aren't long enough for an airplane to have time to climb to long-haul cruising altitudes, whereas propeller aircraft, with their lower speeds, and, thus, lower drag, do just fine going low, and short-haul flights are short enough that slower aircraft aren't a major disadvantage). A widebody propliner would be perfectly-suited for these sorts of jam-packed short-haul markets.

然而,在拥有大量众多人口稠密的大城市的地方,如东亚大部分地区,人数众多,乘客数量如此之高,即使在非常短途航线上也需要使用大型宽体 - 而且,在短程航班上,预报员比喷气式飞机具有相当大的优势(在低空密集的空气中,喷气式飞机效率非常低,而短途飞行时间不足以让飞机有时间爬上长途巡航高度而螺旋桨飞机的速度较低,因此阻力较小,只能做得很好,而短途飞行足够短,飞机速度不是主要的缺点。宽体前端将非常适合这些拥挤的短程市场。

So why aren't there any?

那么为什么没有呢?

3 个解决方案

#1

Not enough thrust

Taking the lightest wide-body, the Airbus A310, its MTOW is >2 times that of a Boeing 737.

空中客车A310采用最轻的宽体,其MTOW是波音737的2倍。

The 737 equivalent in MTOW in the prop world is the C-130, and it needs 4 propellers.

道具世界中MT37中的737等效物是C-130,它需要4个螺旋桨。

Simply, there wouldn't be enough space to put the required number of propellers, even when flying slower. The other route is to go as big as the Hughes H-4 Hercules, and even then the A310's MTOW is heavier.

简单地说,即使飞行速度较慢,也没有足够的空间来放置所需数量的螺旋桨。另一条路线是和Hughes H-4 Hercules一样大,即使这样,A310的MTOW也会更重。

---

The A400M was suggested in a comment as a plane that makes it possible, it doesn't. Its MTOW minus OEW minus Fuel is 15 tonnes, or 115 pax + luggage and no cargo. Also note it's only 4 m wide internally, narrower than the narrowest wide-body, the 767 at 4.72 m, with a max troop capacity of 116.

A400M在评论中被建议作为使其成为可能的飞机,但事实并非如此。其MTOW减去OEW减去燃料为15吨,或115箱+行李,没有货物。还要注意它内部只有4米宽,比最窄的宽体窄,767在4.72米,最大部队容量为116。

The other suggested plane, the Antonov An-10, can only carry 100 passengers.

另一架建议的飞机,Antonov An-10,只能搭载100名乘客。

The Antonov An-22 looks like a contender, but contra-rotating props (which I haven't considered) come with their own drawbacks, it's more efficient to spread the propellers sideways, and not stack them.

Antonov An-22看起来像是一个竞争者,但反转的道具(我没有考虑过)有自己的缺点,将螺旋桨横向展开更有效,而不是叠加它们。

• To be clear, it's not impossible, but why choose a complex design (contra-rotating) over a fan with better disc loading, and thus fewer engines.

要清楚,这并非不可能,但为什么选择复杂的设计(反向旋转)而不是更好的圆盘装载,从而减少发动机的风扇。

---

I highly recommend the post, 'How does a fan differ from a propeller?', where Peter Kämpf compares the disc loading of propellers and fans.

我强烈推荐这个帖子,'风扇与螺旋桨有什么不同?',其中PeterKämpf比较了螺旋桨和风扇的圆盘载荷。

• Propellers on a C-130 Hercules: 259.25 kW/m²

C-130 Hercules上的螺旋桨:259.25千瓦/平方米

• Turbofans on a small BAe 146: 4254.35 kW/m²

小型BAe 146:4254.35 kW /m²的涡轮风扇

#2

Noise and insufficient demand

Prop driven aircraft have much louder cabins than turbofan driven aircraft. The A400m, offered as an example of a large prop aircraft, requires noise deadening treatment to even get to safe industrial levels of sound, let alone something that a passenger would be willing to endure. The AN10 is beyond ridiculously loud. Turboprop aircraft are aimed at short haul as passengers won't put up with the noise for more than a hour or two.

支柱驱动的飞机比涡轮风扇驱动的飞机具有更大的舱室。作为大型螺旋桨飞机的一个例子,A400m需要隔音处理才能达到安全的工业级声音,更不用说乘客愿意忍受的东西了。 AN10超出了可笑的范围。涡轮螺旋桨飞机的目标是短途运输,因为乘客不会忍受噪音超过一两个小时。

Any aircraft developed for long haul use needs to be quiet, and this is where widebodies aim. In the few situations where it is economical to use widebody aircraft for short haul routes (ie. Japan's 747D) a quiet widebody can be used with modest incremental cost. Conversely, a prop powered widebody could not be used on long haul with any conceivable current technology; passengers could not tolerate it.

任何为长途使用而开发的飞机都需要保持安静,这就是宽体的目标。在少数情况下,使用宽体飞机进行短途航线是经济的(即日本的747D),可以使用安静的宽体,增量成本适中。相反,支柱驱动的宽体不能长期使用任何可以想象的现有技术;乘客无法忍受。

Market demand does not justify the billions in development cost to create a short haul only widebody, especially given the ready availability of a substitute that passengers overwhelmingly prefer.

市场需求并不能证明创造短途运输数十亿美元的开发成本是合理的,特别是考虑到乘客绝对喜欢的替代品。

#3

This is a great question. I wonder if the author touting turbofans would care to list fuel consumption per kW of a prop vs turbofan, even though the fans are a great improvement over the first generation of jets whose time from full to empty was measured in minutes.

这是一个很好的问题。我想知道作者吹嘘涡轮风扇是否会关注每千瓦支柱与涡扇发动机的燃油消耗,尽管风扇比第一代喷气式飞机的改进有很大的改进,其时间从满到空都是在几分钟内完成的。

Let's go one better, how about (instead of a 225 foot wingspan) a biplane configuration using the prop/engines from a V22 Osprey. Short haul routes need not be flown at 600mph. Big fuel savings.

让我们更好一点,使用来自V22鱼鹰的道具/引擎的双翼飞机配置怎么样(而不是225英尺翼展)。短途航线不需要以600英里/小时的速度飞行。节省大量燃料。

My concern would be that slower aircraft would give air traffic controllers issues.

我担心的是较慢的飞机会给空中交通管制员带来问题。

However, in terms of efficiency, and with a potential market, it might be worth a look.

但是,就效率和潜在市场而言,可能值得一看。